This
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Pankaj Kumar's
Motion for Conditional Class Certification and
Court-Authorized Notice (Doc. 39). The Motion is fully
briefed and ready for disposition (Docs. 44-45). For the
following reasons, the motion will be granted in part.

On
October 5, 2016, Kumar amended his complaint to bring his
claims on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
attaching a written consent to become a party plaintiff (Doc.
16). In Count I of his amended complaint, Kumar brings an
“opt-in” collective action under the FLSA on
behalf of the following class:

All persons who are, have been or will be employed by Tech
Mahindra as “Software Test Engineers” or
“Software Engineers” (and other titles that
provide computer application and network environment support)
at any time from three (3) years prior to filing this action
through the entry of judgment, and whose job it was to
troubleshoot issues raised by test teams, deploy code and
compile production plans.

(Id. at ¶¶33, 47-57). Counts II and III
are brought as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class
actions alleging violation of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law
(“MMWL”), Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 290.500
et seq., and a state law claim of unjust enrichment
(Id. at ¶¶58-70).

In his
instant motion, Kumar requests the Court conditionally
certify a collective action and authorize notice to the
following class:

All U1-U3 band IT Delivery Engineers employed by Tech
Mahindra who were classified as exempt during any workweek at
any time three (3) years prior to filing this action through
the entry of judgment.

Any individual who works or worked for Defendant Tech
Mahindra (Americas), Inc. as a U1-U3 band IT Engineer under
any of the following job titles: Associate Engineer,
Associate Software Engineer, Junior Software Engineer, Junior
Technical Engineer, Network Engineer, Senior Network
Engineer, Product Engineer, Senior Product Engineer, Test
Engineer, Senior Test Engineer, Software Engineer, or Senior
Software Engineer, that were classified as exempt during any
workweek at any time from June 20, 2013, to present.

(Doc. 45.2).

In
response, Tech Mahindra consents to conditional certification
of the class to the extent it includes U1-U3 band IT
Engineers, but opposes certification of the class to the
extent Kumar seeks to include all such employees who worked
from June 20, 2013 (or three years prior to the date he filed
his original complaint) to the present. Tech Mahindra argues
that the limitations period in this case should be two years,
not three, as there is no evidence that it willfully violated
the FLSA. Tech Mahindra further argues that the limitations
period, whether it is two years or three, should be measured
from the date the Court conditionally certifies the class,
not from the date Plaintiff filed his original complaint,
i.e., the date he initiated this case; or even the date he
filed his amended complaint, i.e., the first pleading in
which he sought to bring a collective action (Doc. 44 at 1,
7-8).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In
reply, Kumar argues that the FLSA&#39;s three-year statute of
limitations should apply because he has pled that Tech
Mahindra&#39;s violation was willful, and that at this
conditional-certification stage of the proceeding, no
evidence of willfulness is required (Doc. 45 at 3-5). Kumar
further contends that, for purposes of defining the scope of
the conditionally certified FLSA class, the Court should run
the limitations period from the date he initiated this action
by filing his original complaint (Id. at 4-5). In
Kumar's view, running the limitations period from the
date the Court conditionally certifies the class would
“improperly restrain the claims of the FLSA Collective
members who have already filed their consent ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.